“The path to peace does not mean making society blandly uniform, but getting people to work together, side-by-side, in pursuing goals that benefit everyone. … The path to social unity always entails acknowledging the possibility that others have, at least in part, a legitimate point of view, something worthwhile to contribute” (Pope Francis, Encyclical Fratelli Tutti, 228).
Ever since his 2013 election to the papacy, Pope Francis has stressed the need to go out into the world and encounter those who are either outside the Church or find themselves alienated from the Catholic faith. Pope Francis’s vision — as most comprehensively expressed in his 2020 encyclical Fratelli Tutti — emphasizes the importance of fraternity and social friendship as essential pathways towards building a more just, peaceful, and equitable world. The pope believes that even amidst our differences, we can work together for a society where the dignity of every human person is respected, and where human rights are recognized and guaranteed.
With this in mind, it is not difficult to see how the pope’s 2016-2017 overhaul of the Pontifical Academy for Life (PAV) was an effort to reflect this vision. It is indicated both in the revised statutes of the Academy and in the diverse group of academics appointed as members over the past several years.
This reorganization of the PAV under its current president, Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia, has resulted in an ongoing controversy about the purpose and the makeup of the organization, however. Although it retains the name and legacy of the organization established by Pope St. John Paul II in 1994 (notably, the PAV celebrated the 30th Anniversary of its founding at this year’s gathering), its mission and activities have changed significantly.
Perhaps the PAV’s most conspicuous change was the elimination of the requirement that academicians take an oath drawn up in 1994 by Venerable Jérôme Lejeune, a French pediatrician and the first president of the Academy (who died a few months before its first meeting). The oath, which remained in force until the 2017 overhaul, affirms that, “Before God and men we bear witness that for us every human being is a person. From the moment the embryo is formed until death it is the same human being which grows to maturity and dies.”
When the requirement to take the oath was removed, many Catholics, including longtime members of the PAV, were distressed. And to a certain extent this is understandable, given the work that the Pontifical Academy for Life has done historically to advise the pope in the areas of human life and bioethics. That is not to say that the Academy is no longer an advisory body to the pope, but he has invited them to take a step outside the box. Perhaps the principle can best be summed up in a statement he made in 2022 to the International Theological Commission, “The theologian dares to go further, and it will be the magisterium that will stop him.”
Today, I would classify the Pontifical Academy for Life as a multidisciplinary scientific academy, established and sanctioned by the pope, that focuses on issues related to: human life and dignity, the human person, and the common good. Its membership includes academics from many fields, ranging from the physical and social sciences to the humanities. They come from a diversity of nations and cultures. Their personal backgrounds include numerous vocations, walks of life, and religions.
I witnessed this diversity firsthand when I attended the PAV meeting in Rome earlier this month. Many of the academicians I met and spoke to were committed Catholics, especially among the Young Researchers (a group of under-35 members). I also met Muslim, Jewish, Orthodox, and (yes) non-religious academicians. Regardless of their religious backgrounds, my impression was that in general, the academicians were honored to be members of the PAV. It was also clear that many of them had forged interdisciplinary professional relationships and cross-cultural friendships as a result of their work with the Academy.
Having a variety of backgrounds among members is not uncommon when compared to similar organizations, such as the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. Renowned scientists such as Niels Bohr and Stephen Hawking — both atheists — were longtime members.
Still, given the Pontifical Academy for Life’s long-held insistence on the orthodoxy of its members, what do the academicians with divergent views bring to the table? Presuming these scholars are among the best and brightest in their fields and that they are appointed based on their innovative ideas and positive contributions to the common good, there should be no question that their voices can greatly enrich the work of the PAV. Furthermore, collaboration between highly regarded academics and the Church can help form bonds of mutual respect and friendship, breaking down barriers of suspicion, stereotype, and fear. In the long run, these relationships can bear great fruit.
The appointment of the recipient of last year’s Nobel Prize for medicine, Dr. Katalin Karikò (who was raised without religion and is not religious), for example, both raises the PAV’s profile and highlights the Academy’s engagement in a broad scientific and ethical discourse on life issues. It should not be seen as a challenge to the Church’s doctrine. While some fear that greater inclusivity might dilute the PAV’s Catholic identity, it is clearly meant as an opportunity to foster dialogue and explore ethical complexities with the brightest and most respected scholars in their fields.
The statutes of the Academy mandate that “New Academicians commit themselves to promoting and defending the principles regarding the value of life and the dignity of the human person, interpreted in a way consonant with the Church’s Magisterium” (Art. 4, §5, b). The same section later stipulates that an Academician can be removed “in the event of a public and deliberate action or statement by a Member clearly contrary to the principles stated in paragraph b) above, or seriously offensive to the dignity and prestige of the Catholic Church or of the Academy itself.”
In situations where their opinions do not reflect the Church’s doctrine, in other words, it appears that as members of the PAV, Academicians are expected to show deference and respect for the teaching of the Church on these questions. This may mean setting their personal views aside at times. This deference was shown clearly by Professor Mariana Mazzucato at the February 12 press conference held at the opening of this month’s assembly. Mazzucato is a London-based economist whose work has been praised by Pope Francis. She is also nonreligious and her appointment to the Academy was controversial in some sectors.
When asked by LifeSiteNews reporter Michael Haynes about a tweet she posted two years ago (in response to the US Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v Wade), Mazzucato responded by emphasizing the issues on which her work is focused — areas where she is in agreement with the pope and the Catholic faith. Then, a few hours later — during the question-and-answer period following her presentation at the meeting — she declined to answer a question mentioning abortion, saying that it was outside her area of expertise.
Looking at this from another perspective, it is remarkable that world-renowned scholars like Mazzucato and Karikò would say how honored they are to be appointed to the Pontifical Academy for Life, and how greatly they esteem the pope and the work of the Academy. It might seem strange to hear non-Catholic scholars speaking about papal encyclicals and discussing Catholic social principles like the preferential option for the poor and the promotion of the common good, but Mazzucato does this frequently. Yes, there are significant and important areas of disagreement between us, but we will only be able to discuss these fruitfully after we have forged bonds of friendship and mutual respect. In the meantime, if Catholics can continue to find ways to promote and protect human dignity in collaboration with nonbelievers — even if on only a few issues — everyone benefits.
Not only has the PAV changed its personnel, but it has also begun to address new questions, such as the ethical considerations related to emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence and robotics. The Academy has also begun to explore an interdisciplinary study of human consciousness. That said, the PAV continues to work attentively on its traditional areas of focus — life and death issues — such as in its ongoing project on palliative care.
With all this in mind, I think it is crucial that the Pontifical Academy for Life continues to clarify its mission and objectives publicly — especially considering the aggressive media campaign to discredit and malign its reputation. Certainly some critics will never be satisfied, but a few small steps here and there could greatly enhance the public image of the Academy in the wider Church. As I’ve mentioned in the past, I think it would be wise for Archbishop Paglia and others in the Academy’s leadership to consult with advisors who are familiar with the US pro-life movement before making public statements on highly-charged topics — and especially when making clarifications and addressing controversies. Italian Catholics speak an entirely different language than Americans on key US “culture war” issues, and misunderstandings can lead to unnecessary headaches and consternation.
Some Catholics are concerned about the place of Catholic doctrine in an Academy with a broader scope. I spoke with longtime members who felt strongly that while open dialogue and theological speculation are always welcome, its work will be less fruitful if done without using the Magisterium as a point of reference. Historically, the PAV has served as a consultative body to the pope on doctrinal matters related to medicine and bioethics, such as in its straightforward 2000 Declaration on the use of human stem cells. Going forward, should we continue to see it in that role? Or will its future contributions to Catholic thought look more like the controversial 2022 volume Theological Ethics of Life: Scripture, Tradition and Practical Challenges (which contains a wide variety of theological and bioethical propositions from multiple contributors — some of which were seen as advancing positions contrary to Catholic doctrine).
Perhaps asking such loaded hypothetical questions isn’t necessary. After all, the pope (whoever he happens to be) can pull in whomever he wants to advise him on whatever questions he decides to address. And he is likewise free to change or overhaul personnel in Pontifical Academies as he sees fit.
And in this light, I think it is safe to say that the evolution of the Pontifical Academy for Life under Pope Francis’s guidance exemplifies his commitment to a Church that is open, inclusive, and engaged with the world. By embracing diversity and fostering dialogue, the Academy can contribute significantly to the Church’s mission of promoting the dignity and value of every human life — even if there’s a bit of confusion or disagreement along the way. A synodal vision of the Church requires us to take risks, to open ourselves to those who are different, and to work together for the common good in peace and fraternity.
Image: Pope Francis greets Cardinal Wim Eijk during his February 12, 2024 audience with the Pontifical Academy for Life. Vatican Media.
Mike Lewis is the founding managing editor of Where Peter Is. He and Jeannie Gaffigan co-host Field Hospital, a U.S. Catholic podcast.
Popular Posts